Re: [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-15: (with BLOCK)

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 10/29/14 5:23 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-anima-00-15: Block
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The thing I still see missing in this charter is an explanation of how
> "professionally managed" and "autonomic" mesh.   What does it mean for an
> autonomic network to be professionally managed?

It implies to me that the parameters governing the system were applied
by a manager and not the product of a set of extrinsic initial
conditions and the expression of a set of algorithms.  That fact that
you can configure your homenet is not a necessary condition for it's
operation, and and fact you hope to have something operates in the
absence of signficant deliberate intent.

so to contrast.

...
Additionally, management and optimisation of operational device
configurations is
expensive, tedious, and prone to human error.
...
This WG is intended to mitigate this duplication of similar mechanisms
and heavy
dependency on human actions, in particular by facilitating secure
closed-loop
interaction directly between network elements to satisfy management intent.
This motivates the introduction of a control paradigm where network
processes,
driven by objectives (or intent), coordinate their local decisions,
autonomically translate them into local actions, and adapt them
automatically
according to various sources of information including external
information and
protocol information bases.
...

Speaks to the nature of managed, deliberately designed and laid out but
automatically triggered set of autonomic actions.

>  What distinguishes an
> anima network from a homenet, for example?   The charter still reads as
> though it's solving the same problem as homenet;
>
> I realize that this
> isn't what the proponents actually have in mind, but some greater clarity
> would be nice: it's still not clear in my mind from reading the charter
> or from my discussion with Joel and Benoit.
> 
> 
> 
>